State ex rel. Camaco, L.L.C. v. Albu (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 7569
| Ohio | 2017Background
- In 2006 Robert Albu was struck in the head by an automated seatback-manufacturing system (Wayne Trail/Motoman robot) after entering the fenced work cell through a material-exit opening while troubleshooting a jam.
- Albu’s workers’ compensation claim was allowed for head injuries and he applied for an additional VSSR (violation of a specific safety requirement) award under Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-17(G)(1)(a)(i) (protective headgear where heads exposed to hazards).
- The first Industrial Commission staff hearing officer (SHO) denied the VSSR award, finding Albu had bypassed safety interlocks by entering through the material-exit chute.
- On rehearing a different SHO granted the VSSR award, relying on an expert report (Mangold) — a theory neither party advanced at rehearing — that the system had a latent defect allowing the bending-machine arm to move at full speed even in robot "teach" mode, creating an unavoidable head-contact hazard.
- Camaco challenged the VSSR award in mandamus, arguing (1) the latent-defect theory was not raised at the administrative level (so it had no chance to respond) and (2) it cannot be liable for a VSSR absent knowledge (or constructive knowledge) of the specific danger requiring the safety device.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio held Camaco did not waive the latent-defect defense and remanded: the commission must determine whether Camaco knew or should have known of the latent defect at the time of Albu’s injury; if not, no VSSR liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Albu) | Defendant's Argument (Camaco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of head-protection rule (Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-17(G)) | Albu: system condition created a head-contact hazard; Camaco should have provided headgear | Camaco: hazard arose from a latent defect and Albu’s bypassing of interlocks; Camaco lacked knowledge of any danger | Court: SHO relied on latent-defect theory not litigated below; commission must determine whether Camaco knew or should have known of the defect before VSSR can stand |
| Waiver (failure to raise latent-defect defense administratively) | Albu: issue was before SHO on rehearing implicitly | Camaco: could not have anticipated SHO’s sua sponte theory; waiver inapplicable | Court: no waiver — rehearing rule and SHO’s new theory made mandamus Camaco’s first meaningful chance to contest the latent-defect theory |
| Burden on employer for VSSR where danger stems from latent equipment defect | Albu: hazard existed regardless of employer knowledge; VSSR justified | Camaco: cannot be penalized for unknown, latent defect; absent employer knowledge, no duty to provide protection | Court: employer not liable for VSSR if it lacked knowledge (or constructive knowledge) of the specific danger; commission must resolve knowledge factual question |
| Appropriate remedy (remand vs. grant writ) | Albu: evidence supports commission’s award | Camaco: commission abused discretion by relying on unlitigated theory and record lacks evidence of employer knowledge | Court: reverse court of appeals; limited writ ordering commission to vacate VSSR order and determine whether Camaco knew/should have known of the defect; if no knowledge, VSSR cannot stand |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Richmond v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 157 (2014) (elements for VSSR award: applicability, violation, proximate causation)
- State ex rel. Trydle v. Indus. Comm., 32 Ohio St.2d 257 (1972) (definition of specific safety requirement)
- State ex rel. Penwell v. Indus. Comm., 142 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (VSSR is a penalty; resolve doubts in employer’s favor)
- State ex rel. Taylor v. Indus. Comm., 70 Ohio St.3d 445 (1994) (VSSR award cannot be sustained without evidence of prior malfunction and employer awareness)
- State ex rel. M.T.D. Prods., Inc. v. Stebbins, 43 Ohio St.2d 114 (1975) (employer not liable for first-time failure of a safety device)
- State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78 (1997) (appellate waiver rule applies in mandamus challenging administrative actions)
- State ex rel. Scott v. Indus. Comm., 136 Ohio St.3d 92 (2013) (factual questions relevant to VSSR rest within commission’s discretion)
- State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm, 68 Ohio St.3d 315 (1994) (court may resolve facts without remand only when evidence is overwhelming)
- State ex rel. Tradesmen Internatl. v. Indus. Comm., 143 Ohio St.3d 336 (2015) (commission abuses discretion when decision lacks some evidence)